I don't want to start the whole global warming debate again (those threads can be a real pain on here) something did bug me here
The author says...
"Speaking of worlds, climate change is real. Even my amateurish, admittedly clunky analyses makes that glaringly obvious. Boston’s temperatures are on the rise and we’re getting heavier rain. "
But that's an erroneous statement. What he means is that warming is real but that's not a fact that anyone I know of disputes. The question is to the cause of that warming and if that cause represents a change of climate due to our behavior or a naturally cyclical trend that we don't have enough data to measure.
The reason I point this out is because badly defined debates don't get us anywhere. Unless we're clear on what the actual questions are we can't accurately debate the answers.
> The question is to the cause of that warming and if that cause represents a change of climate due to our behavior
and, even if you assume that it's due to our behavior, that doesn't tell us what to do about it, or even if we should do something. (There are significant benefits to a slightly warmer planet.)
The proposals, while very expensive, aren't predicted to make a significant difference by their proponents, so it's unclear why we should adopt them.
We have plenty of data to show that the climate of the planet has been very different at different times in the past. We also have good data that humans have had an effect on the climate (although why this would be surprising escapes me, perhaps the surprise is that its measurable).
What we don't have is any clue on how humans could control the climate long term so changing our behavior may reduce our contribution to the change but it will not stop change from occuring.
Its useful that we live through several of the annual cycles of weather changes before we have a chance to worry about it. Imagine if humans went from birth to middle age in three months, by mid-summer they might be afraid that the temperature was just going to keep on going up forever, as it had their entire life. We see a variant on this with multi-generational cycles like volcanic eruptions where something that "always" been true, and then it isn't one year.
That being said I'm all in favor in finding ways to be more efficient. We can't realistically consider stellar travel until we can create an environment which is self sustaining. I do wish however that we'd invest more in adapting to climate change rather than throw money away at trying to "stop" it.
Adapting? That's simple. All we have to do is change what crops are being grown around the world, adapt to changing weather patterns that make fertile places arid and arid places fertile, and find new homes for the millions and millions that are going to be displaced as the sea level rises. It's only a couple trillion dollars, give or take.
I understand the sarcasm, and I understand the fear, but do you understand the problem?
The climate on this planet will change, whether or not we lower our carbon footprint. We should know this because it has changed while we (humans) were not here, and it is changing while we (humans) are here. Moderate climate change causes loss of habitat, significant change causes extinctions. That's not sarcasm, it is literally written in stone, the geologic record.
Yes, human activity is changing the climate too, we've joined volcanoes, space junk, solar variance, biological blooms, and perhaps another half dozen yet undiscovered processes which affect climate on the planet. If you are rational you know there is absolutely no way that humans can counteract the changes to the climate that will be caused the next time Yellowstone erupts. If you are a geologist you know that Yellowstone will erupt, it's just a question of when.
We are currently alive, and we have economic productivity that exceeds 58 trillion dollars per year [1]. We could apply some of that toward making our species immune to climate change. We could be selfish and make only part of our species immune to climate change (the 'developed' nations). But we should not waste capital and economic productivity on things that do not contribute to that goal.
The science is great, and I am a huge fan of understanding all the variables. But misleading the public into believing if they just lower their carbon footprint the climate won't change is irresponsible at best.
> The reason I point this out is because badly defined debates don't get us anywhere.
True that.
<irritated-with-all-that-AGW> Let's not forget how the Dinosaurs caused the Ice Age, by sequestering all the carbon from atmospheric CO₂ into coal and crude oil. Let's not follow in their footsteps, lest we perish in a new ice age just like them. /sarcasm/ </irritated-with-all-that-AGW>
"warming is real but that's not a fact that anyone I know of disputes"
Have you considered the positioning of the temperature sensors over the decades? Are they static? and if so, are their surroundings static, e.g. are there more parking lots or less trees around the sensors?
The author says...
"Speaking of worlds, climate change is real. Even my amateurish, admittedly clunky analyses makes that glaringly obvious. Boston’s temperatures are on the rise and we’re getting heavier rain. "
But that's an erroneous statement. What he means is that warming is real but that's not a fact that anyone I know of disputes. The question is to the cause of that warming and if that cause represents a change of climate due to our behavior or a naturally cyclical trend that we don't have enough data to measure.
The reason I point this out is because badly defined debates don't get us anywhere. Unless we're clear on what the actual questions are we can't accurately debate the answers.